TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a new factual plea relating to service of notice could be raised for the first time in appeal under section 260A; (ii) Whether loss from share transactions without actual delivery could be set off against income from house property in view of sections 43(5) and 73, including the Explanation to section 73; (iii) Whether brokerage paid for letting out house property was deductible from house property income under section 24.
Issue (i): Whether a new factual plea relating to service of notice could be raised for the first time in appeal under section 260A.
Analysis: A question of fact is not to be allowed mechanically at the appellate stage merely because it was not raised earlier. The power to permit a new issue exists only where the interests of justice require it, and the opposite party should not be prejudiced by being deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence. The principle governing additional questions in appeal does not create a universal right to raise a factual objection for the first time.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether loss from share transactions without actual delivery could be set off against income from house property in view of sections 43(5) and 73, including the Explanation to section 73.
Analysis: Transactions settled otherwise than by actual delivery fall within the definition of speculative transaction. Loss from such dealings is a speculative loss and, under the scheme of the Act, speculative loss can be set off only in the manner permitted for speculation business. The Explanation to section 73 is directed to treating certain companies dealing in shares as carrying on speculation business to the extent of such share dealings; it does not enlarge the right to set off speculative loss against house property income. The statutory scheme treats speculation business as distinct and separate from other business.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether brokerage paid for letting out house property was deductible from house property income under section 24.
Analysis: Income from house property is computed on the basis of annual letting value, and the deductions admissible from such income are only those specifically provided by section 24. Brokerage or commission paid to secure the letting is not among the permissible deductions. The statutory allowance under section 24 is exhaustive for this head of income.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed on all substantial questions of law, and the assessment was sustained in full.
Ratio Decidendi: A factual plea not raised at the earliest stage may be refused in appeal unless justice requires otherwise; speculative share losses governed by sections 43(5) and 73 cannot be set off against house property income; and deductions from house property income are confined to those expressly allowed by section 24.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
